RAJ PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present petition the petitioner seeks quashing of order dtd. 5/10/2021 through which under Rule 12.2(b) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 (for short, the Rules) a regular departmental inquiry has been ordered to be held against him on the ground that between the years 1986-88, while he was posted as an Inspector in the Haryana Police at Karnal, he had also passed his LLB course from Rajasthan and therefore could not have been present at two places at the same time.

(2.) The facts, in brief, which are required to be noticed for adjudicating upon the instant petition are that on 15/11/1981 the petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Haryana Police. Thereafter he earned promotions to the posts of Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector, Sub Inspector and in the year 2009 was promoted as an Inspector from which post he superannuated on 30/6/2019. After attaining the age of superannuation he was granted one year's extension in service which came to an end on 30/6/2020. Thereafter, on 5/8/2021 the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Haryana accorded necessary permission to initiate a departmental inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 12.2(b) of the Rules on the basis whereof the Superintendent of Police, Commando (H) Newal, Karnal passed an order dtd. 5/10/2021 through which the petitioner was informed that a regular departmental inquiry had been ordered against him. Alongwith such order a charge-sheet was also served upon the petitioner as per which the alleged misconduct by him was that between the years 1986-88, while he was posted at Karnal, he had undergone his LLB course from Nehru Memorial Law College, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan and Mehrisi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer, Rajasthan and since he could not have been present at both the places at the same time he had fudged the record at either place. The petitioner represented to the inquiry officer informing him about the legal bar under Rule 12.2(b) read with Rule 12(5)(a) of the Rules as per which after the petitioner had retired from service he could not be departmentally proceeded against for a misconduct which had taken place beyond four years from the date of institution of the departmental proceedings. When the petitioner did not receive any response to his afore representation and the respondents intended to continue with the inquiry proceedings, he knocked the doors of this Court through the instant petition for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on 30/6/2019 and that even the extension of his service for one year ended on 30/6/2020 and since after his retirement he was sought to be departmentally proceeded against for an alleged misconduct which took place between the years 1986-88 which was well beyond four years from the date of the petitioner's retirement, the impugned departmental proceedings were barred under Rule 12.2(b) read with Rule 12(5)(a) of the Rules.